3rdnlng Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: The Australians did not pass along the info until they saw the stolen emails were actually being weaponized, just like Popadopolous said. They put 2and 2 together So, the dossier initiated the search warrant after all?
Tiberius Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, the dossier initiated the search warrant after all? Did it?
3rdnlng Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Did it? Well, obviously it wasn't this new found theory that you helped debunk.
Tiberius Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Well, obviously it wasn't this new found theory that you helped debunk. Which search warrant are you talking about??? If Papadodopolous was blabbing about this, it stands to reason the whole gang of them knew about this. Oh dear...
3rdnlng Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Which search warrant are you talking about??? AR15453892250
Deranged Rhino Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 This story, aside from being highly likely to have never happened, is an attempt to move away from the dossier which is hung around the necks of the dnc and usic like an albatross. It wont work.
Tiberius Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 25 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: AR15453892250 Ok! Great stuff there 15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: This story, aside from being highly likely to have never happened, is an attempt to move away from the dossier which is hung around the necks of the dnc and usic like an albatross. It wont work. So who is the evil anti-Trump person that is lying this time? The Australian ambassador?
Deranged Rhino Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 Check out who wrote the story. Search Wikileaks. See how many times they come up in connection to spinning/covering/outright warning HRC of incoming stories. This is a bad attempt to (once again) change the story. For months we have heard nothing but how the dossier is legit and the starting point of the whole Russian collusion meme. Then, for the past three weeks we've seen mountains of actual evidence come out which shows the dossier's true provenience (a joint DNC, CF, DOJ project), how 44 used it get FISA warrants and illegally surveil his political opposition (kind of like he was known to do to his political enemies - here's a guy who used the IRS to target Christians and Conservatives while giving Hezbollah a pass to run guns, drugs, and children into the country... think about THAT). So, now that the dossier is toxic, and going to get a lot of people indicted within the DNC and DOJ, the same folks are using their media mouthpieces to try to invent a NEW starting point for the investigation. If you had a brain, which you've proven you lack, you'd understand the Australian "ambassador" (who isn't just an ambassador, but rather carries a much larger title and sense of entitlement) would never meet with GP on his own. This is spin. Bad spin. It won't work.
Tiberius Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 33 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Check out who wrote the story. Search Wikileaks. See how many times they come up in connection to spinning/covering/outright warning HRC of incoming stories. This is a bad attempt to (once again) change the story. For months we have heard nothing but how the dossier is legit and the starting point of the whole Russian collusion meme. Then, for the past three weeks we've seen mountains of actual evidence come out which shows the dossier's true provenience (a joint DNC, CF, DOJ project), how 44 used it get FISA warrants and illegally surveil his political opposition (kind of like he was known to do to his political enemies - here's a guy who used the IRS to target Christians and Conservatives while giving Hezbollah a pass to run guns, drugs, and children into the country... think about THAT). So, now that the dossier is toxic, and going to get a lot of people indicted within the DNC and DOJ, the same folks are using their media mouthpieces to try to invent a NEW starting point for the investigation. If you had a brain, which you've proven you lack, you'd understand the Australian "ambassador" (who isn't just an ambassador, but rather carries a much larger title and sense of entitlement) would never meet with GP on his own. This is spin. Bad spin. It won't work. No one accept for you is trying to change the story. So you are saying the ambassador is lying. Ok!
B-Man Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 D.R...................................truly............................join those of us who do not respond to his gibberish, but laugh at his idiocy "accept for you".................honestly ? and the ever present "so you are saying" and then he completely misinterprets it. its funny yes, but you lower yourself by contributing to it.......................I won't do it. . 1
Deranged Rhino Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 24 minutes ago, B-Man said: D.R...................................truly............................join those of us who do not respond to his gibberish, but laugh at his idiocy "accept for you".................honestly ? and the ever present "so you are saying" and then he completely misinterprets it. its funny yes, but you lower yourself by contributing to it.......................I won't do it. . Youre right. Sounds like a good resolution for me.
Tiberius Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/kfile-roger-stone-wikileaks-claims/index.html these guys are their own worst enemies. Even if you actually believe the Austrialian ambassador is a third degree deep state spy who hates Trump and made up the story, it's hard to deny these guys in Trumpland didn't work with the Russians to attack our democracy. They were bragging about it to everyone!
B-Man Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 THE TIMES DIVERSION by Scott Johnson In collusion news today, the New York Times has devoted six reporters to producing the “news” that the previously obscure Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos lies at the heart of the putative case. Their story is “How the Russia inquiry began: A campaign aide, drinks and talk of political dirt.” Paul wrote about it last night here. I think the story is ludicrous on its face. The Times has served as a prime purveyor of the Trump/Russia hysteria. Yet reality has deflated it. Now the Times returns to pump it up. The names have changed, but the song remains the same. The Times has lost the thread on its preferred narrative. Indeed, attention has turned to the Steele/Trump dossier and the apparent wrongdoing related to it. The authorities inside the Obama administration who took advantage of it seek to cover their tracks. The deeply felt needs of the Times and its collaborators are consummated in today’s big story. Who helped the Times concoct its story today? We have come to expect the usual guarded law enforcement and intelligence sources who cannot be identified because the information is classified and they weren’t authorized to talk about it. Today’s story is not quite so forthcoming. The six Times reporters disclose only that they relied on “interviews.” Well, not just interviews. Late in the story “current and former officials familiar with the debate” appear. The Times story also relies on “previously undisclosed documents.” The Times story states: “A team of F.B.I. agents traveled to Europe to interview Mr. Steele in early October 2016. Mr. Steele had shown some of his findings to an F.B.I. agent in Rome three months earlier [coincidentally, at the time the investigation started], but that information was not part of the justification to start an counterintelligence inquiry, American officials said.” With whom did the Times conduct the interviews? What were the circumstances? Who contacted whom? How can this story have remained dormant until today? The Times doesn’t say. What are the “previously undisclosed documents”? The Times doesn’t say it directly, but the documents do not demonstrate how the counterintelligence investigation started. They do not establish the story’s thesis. How can any informed observer take this seriously? We await the disclosure of genuine evidence rather than obvious spin. We don’t have nearly enough information to arrive at a definitive judgment. We must keep our minds open until we are privy to it. In time I may be proved wrong. Yet I don’t think it is rash to say that this Times story is some kind of a joke. More at the link: . 1
Tiberius Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 Lol, it's closing in! The Post and the Times are doing their jobs and ignorant Trumpers can only vomit out nonsense. Poor little things. If Popadodolous was really wearing a wire, that will be interesting to see who he got to talk. Remember, he was arrested and no one knew that for months.
B-Man Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 ANDREW MCCARTHY: As the Dossier Scandal Looms, the New York Times Struggles to Save Its Collusion Tale. .
boyst Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 On 12/31/2017 at 6:39 PM, Nanker said: ^^^^^^^^ Pathetic Pathetic vvvvvvv
Tiberius Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 2 hours ago, B-Man said: ANDREW MCCARTHY: As the Dossier Scandal Looms, the New York Times Struggles to Save Its Collusion Tale. . It's a conspiracy not collusion. We already know Trump and company worked with the Russians, only the most willfully ignorant ignore that fact. The question is how deep does the conspiracy go
Recommended Posts